[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0804181521200.14933@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:25:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Pekka Paalanen <pq@....fi>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Soeren Sandmann Pedersen <sandmann@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH sched-devel] ftrace: trace_entries to change trace buffer
size
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > Actually, that's just a way of doing spin_lock_init for raw spin locks. I
> > didn't see any other way.
>
> Maybe we need raw_spin_lock_init(). And DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK()?
>
> Although it isn't a great idea to be encouraging the use of raw
> spinlocks.
>
I was thinking the same thing. Raw spin_locks should not be used, unless
there's a really good reason to use them. Strange things like mcount is
one example, but I cant think of many more. I'd be hesitant to add such an
API, which might lead to other users of raw_spin_locks when they really
shouldn't.
Not to mention that we also have raw_spinlock_t in -rt that has a little
different meaning.
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists